Now, some will say the court accepts that there has been a redefinition of marriage. If so, they had best tell us what it is. Because, you see, our leftist marriage engineers have not redefined marriage.

They have undefined it.

Brilliant!!

3 posted on 02/08/2012 9:13:47 AM PST by Hodar
( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)

unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.

The issue for the left is largely monetary, of course. Spouses qualify under insurance plans, significant others generally do not. Social security benefits and pensions are granted to the spouse of the deceased, not the significant other.

So the real point for the left is to grant monetary advantage to a favored group, (rather than a disfavored group). I think they know their reasoning is inconsistent and contradictory. They just don't care since the goal is to work the system to 'get' something for one of their faithful groups. Leftists are usually motivated by self interest, the holier than thou rhetoric is merely justification, like calling baby murder 'women's reproductive rights'.

11 posted on 02/08/2012 9:37:29 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota
(Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)

The 9th Circuit errs because homosexuals are not denied the ability to marry. Look at Elton John. He is homosexual and was legally married. A homosexual may, however, be denied the ability to marry who they please. However, they are not the only ones being denied. Most states limit marriage to one man, one woman, of legal age, and not closely related. Under the courts ruling, a person who is a bigamist, zoophile, pedophile or wanting to engage in an incestuous relation is also being discriminated. By only focusing on one of the limiting factors in the statue they are themselves engaged in discriminating behavior and not providing equal protection under the law under their own arguments. Truly following their argument would allow any relation to be protected as a marital right. The “undefining” of marriage indeed.

"The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."

Hot dang! Does this mean me and my sister Shirley can get hitched now?

I think a lot of people, including Freepers and other assorted conservatives, are closing their eyes to a stark reality: that voting and making rational arguments in the public square mean nothing at this point. Nothing. How can anyone believe, for example, that the 9th Circuit made this ruling based on their best interpretation of law? This was a blatant dictatorial act, as so many court rulings have been. The written opinion was just a formality to placate those among us who are still gullible enough to believe we have rule of law left in this country. Quite a few of the larger political issues in California, for example, have been decided by some court or another, often by a single judge, rather than by vote of the people. Prop 187 to limit services to illegals was struck down, Prop 8 to keep marriage defined as man-woman was struck down. Everyone likes to make fun of liberal California, but every time its people have tried to keep it on the right track, the judiciary has intervened.

What we are experiencing is a political coup by leftists to remake the country. This is no different, absolutely no different, than if an army of Soviets were storming our beaches and forcing us to give up all of our own culture and law, except that we are simply not shooting back. The author of this piece makes an excellent argument, but that is because the argument is self-evident. Even those making these rulings would most likely agree with his reasoning but they do not care. They are not making these rulings based on American law or tradition - they are making these rulings purposely to destroy American law and tradition and culture. They are anti-American infiltrators of our judiciary and their sole purpose is to tear down our entire system, no doubt to replace it with a communist "utopia", and we're letting it happen because we're still under the delusion that these people are simply misguided.

We are at "go" time, people. We should all be viewing these rulings, these courts, and the various other governmental diktats as illegitimate, and act accordingly. Going back and forth, making these grand arguments is a complete waste of time.

Instead, it should have been, "Marriage is hereby legally defined as a union between a man and a woman."

Unfortunately, even that is not sufficient.

To wit:

Transgender is a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to vary from culturally conventional gender roles. [source: Wikipedia]

Transsexualismis an individual's identification with a gender inconsistent or not culturally associated with his or her biological sex. Simply put, it defines a person whose biological birth sex conflicts with his or her psychological gender.[source: Wikipedia]

It should be clear to anyone reading the definitions above that the terms man and woman, per the authors suggestion, raise some immediate questions.

That said, it was a very well written article, but the problem goes even deeper. If gender is redefined, or undefined, then it doesn't matter what arguments you make concerning a man and a woman as it relates to marriage because it will still be ambiguous, which is exactly what the left wants, because logically...and I've argued this many times, over many years...marriage is contingent upon an understanding that gender is the only true distinction of the human species. Once you wash that away, everything washes away with it, which is why the left is so adamant about doing it. Most people, even intellectuals on our side, haven't made this connection yet. In any event, it probably doesn't matter since transgenderism and transsexualism have already been accepted as legitimate.

Ironically, gender, as the only true distinction which transcends all other superficial differences within the species, is really the only true way to apply marriage fairly since it is not contingent to race, culture, heredity, etc.

The premise of marriage has always been about gender, even from the beginning When God made them male and female, and the arguments lie within that premise.

It is the reason why marriage is limited to only two people, and why, if you alter the qualitative aspect of marriage, you necessarily alter the quantitative, since one is based on dissimilarity which infers a fixed quantity, whereas the other is based on similarity which infers a variable quantity. In this second case, you could limit it to two, but it would be entirely arbitrary and thus prejudicial and bias from the outset.